LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

See very good discussion of sacrifice in Leithart, House for My Name, 87–95.

134. SC 6; CT 557.

135. Kleinig, Leviticus, 357.

136. Ibid., 117.

137. Ibid., 357.

138. Milgrom, Leviticus1–16, 1079–84. In spite of the connotations that Milgrom’s translation suggests, he still considers the idea of the “sin offering” to be erroneous and theologically “foreign” (254) to Leviticus. He believes that the offering has nothing to do with personal guilt, but rather has the function of the “ritual detergent” of sacred space. Japanese scholar Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, who points to the fact that the texts of Leviticus are extremely clear that sin offerings are meant to cleanse from personal guilt, challenges this interpretation (held by several other scholars as well). See his masterful Purification Offering. Also see Kleinig, Leviticus, 117.

139. Kleinig, Leviticus, 117.

140. Antiquities of the Jews, 7.13.4, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 206. We read: “and he [David] built an altar, he performed divine service, and brought a burnt offering, and offered peace offerings also. With these God was pacified, and became gracious to them again” (emphasis added). Also see E. Sanders, Judaism, 106–7, 251–57. Sanders has some doubts about how much sacrifice was seen as propitiation, but adds some good facts to the discussion. Also see the older and somewhat outdated, but essentially correct assessment of the nature of sacrifice in Kurtz, Der Mosaische Opfer.

141. See discussion in Kleinig, Leviticus, 100, 123, 136, 119–20. For unintentional sins see Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27. For intentional sins see Num 15:27–31. Though it is not clear how much in actual practice this was really carried out.

142. See discussions of the Day of Atonement in Hartley, Leviticus, 201–16; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 288–311; Kleinig, Leviticus, 327–353; Rodriguez, “Leviticus 16,” 269–86.

143. See the following sources on the scapegoat: Westbrook and Lewis, “Who Led the Scapegoat?,” 417–422; McLean, “Revision of Scapegoat Terminology,” 168–73; Roo, “Was the Goat?,” 233–42; Feinberg, “Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” 320–33; R. Helm, “Azazel in Early Jewish Tradition,” 217–26; Grabbe, “Scapegoat Tradition,” 152–67.

144. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 6.

145. Ibid.

146. The engraving on the diadem of the high priest in Exod 39 is typically translated as “Holy to YHWH.” This disagrees with Antiquities of the Jews, 3.7.6, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 90, and Jewish War, 5.5.7, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 708. Josephus claims there that it is merely the Tetragrammaton that appears on the high priest’s diadem. This discrepancy can be resolved by suggesting that the Exodus text might be translated as “the holy inscription: ‘YHWH.’” J. E. Hodd has convincingly argued that Exodus should be interpreted in the direction of the later evidence from Josephus and other Jewish sources. See. Hodd, “Note on Two Points,” 74–75.

147. Fletcher-Louis, “High Priest as Divine Mediator,” 188–89.

148. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 6.

149. Ibid.

150. Ibid., 6–7.

151. Beale, Temple, 83. Beale makes a similar observation about divine kingship in the Ancient Near East. The divine king would stand for the living image of the god.

152. Levenson, Creation, 74–77.

153. See similar observations regarding the unity of cult and creation in Prenter, Creation and Redemption, 193–97.

154. See Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:283–89.

155. See discussion in Harstad, Joshua, 252–55. See also Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:128. Hengstenberg connects this with Matt 26:53 where Jesus claims the role of being the leader of the heavenly hosts.

156. Steinmann, Daniel, 489.

157. Fletcher-Louis, “High Priest as a Divine Mediator,” 169–74.

158. See Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 80–89; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:75–76; Steinmann, Daniel, 490. Also see Mitchell, Song of Songs, 921–22, 944–61. Mitchell connects this figure with the angel of Rev 10, and suggests that both are Christ. Also see discussion of the christological nature of the Ezekiel vision in Hummel, Ezekiel, 1:49–50.

159. See argument in favor of traditional messianic interpretation in Leupold, Psalms, 770–78. Also see discussions of Melchizedek in Fitzmyer, “Melchizedek,” 63–69; McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 1–31; Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 81–94.

160. One might ask how a promise of an eternal priesthood squares with Christ’s own priesthood in the NT. Although Christ was not a Levite (Heb 7:14), all who are in him are eternally priests (1 Pet 2:9, Rev 5:10) and therefore Christ’s eschatological priesthood fulfills this promise to the Levities who have faith in him as their eternal high priest.

161. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 4:172–75.

162. Ibid., 4:167–71.

163. Ibid., 4:162.

164. Leupold, Zechariah, 77–78.

165. See discussion

Скачать книгу